Humanists and gays campaign against appointment of Catholic EU Commissioner

By Deacon Nick Donnelly, on November 11th, 2012

A coalition of humanists and homosexual activists is flouting EU procedures to stop the confirmation of Dr. Tonio Borg, Malta’s Foreign Minister, to the post of EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy due to the fact that he is a Catholic.

The fact that Dr. Tonio is a Catholic should not be an issue under Annex XVII of the European Parliament’s own Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that European commissioners are to be designated solely on the basis of their competence and knowledge of their prospective portfolio. Dr. Borg’s personal beliefs thus should not and cannot be used to evaluate his suitability for the post.

However, the European Humanist Federation, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) are focusing their attacks on Dr. Borg’s Catholic faith and his personal views on issues like abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ and divorce.

The ILGA receives 70% of its annual budget from the EU.

As well as holding a senior post in the Maltese government, Dr Borg has academic qualifications in administrative and human rights law, and decades of experience in his country’s Justice and Home Affairs Ministries.

The coalition of humanists and gays have attacked Dr. Borg’s Catholic faith asserting that he does not share ‘European values’, going so far as to assert that he has ‘extremist values’ because he is a Catholic.

European Dignity Watch reports:

‘In other words, according to these vocal lobby groups, simply holding Christian beliefs on social issues is a sign of ‘extremism’.

This would have certainly surprised the ‘founding fathers’ of European integration, many of whom were devout Christians who based the European project on Christian principles such as subsidiarity, as well as human dignity and solidarity.

The vast majority of European citizens today are Christians. To portray Christianity as ‘extremism’ is hateful and intolerant propaganda. But much of it is disseminated by various NGOs who themselves hold the rather extreme views of a minority of radical secularists,abortion and LGBT advocates. But the message of their sabre-rattling in the lead-up to the hearing is clear: European values are not Christian values—and Christian values are incompatible with European values.

There is a fundamental arrogance in the assertion made by Dr. Borg’s opponents that only views closely aligned with their own can be considered ‘truly European’—that their secularist, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and anti-Christian agenda is ‘more European’ than mainstream views. But this campaign is not about having a public debate on European values, it is about denying a qualified person the right to hold a high-ranking office in the EU because he is a Christian.

The simple fact is that these groups are trying to use the veil of ‘European values’ to advance their own radical agenda. They seem to have forgotten the Preamble of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which speaks of “respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe.” It also explicitly recognises Europe’s “spiritual and moral heritage”, of which Dr. Borg is a dignified exponent.

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s hearing, the MEPs on the interviewing committees ought to consider very carefully whether they will be guided by these Rules of Procedure and the broader, democratic ideals of the EU—including religious liberty, as well as freedom of thought and expression—or whether they will simply allow themselves to be cowed by radical special interests and well-funded lobby groups, which hold views that are not representative of the majority of Europeans.

Protect the Pope comment: What we are witnessing in the confirmation hearing of Dr. Tonio looks like a re-run of the anti-Catholic campaign against the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione to the European Commission.

Rocco Buttiglione was forced to withdraw his nomination because he was condemned for being a Catholic. If the same fate happens to Dr. Tonio the Holy See should re-consider its positive attitude towards the EU, at last realizing that it has abandoned its original Christian ideals and has become a major purveyor of the Culture of Death in all its evil guises.

If there is no place for this latest Carholic in the Commission, there is no place for any Catholic or other persons who hold to similar natural law morality in the EU. I hope he will not be intimidated by this vile attempt to remove all objection to their disvalues from the public square.

Conspiracy to corrupt public morals is still an offence at common law. In a properly otdered society, European Humanist Federation, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the International Lesbian and Gay Association would be in jail.

The EU doesn’t have its own flag. The familiar yellow stars on a blue background is the flag of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was originally going to adopt the flag of the International Paneuropean Union which is the ring of stars with a “sun cross” in the centre. The cross was deliberately removed following objections from Turkey the only majority-non-Christian member of the Council of Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Paneuropean_Union

None of this really matters but you could make the case that the “EU flag” was deliberately secularised from the outset.

The EU adopted the COE flag in 1985. The designer, Arsene Heitz, admitted that one inspiration was Revelations 12:1. ‘Signum magnum apparuit in caelo: mulier amicta sole, et luna sub pedibus eius, et in capite eius corona stellarum duodecim’. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Catholic art and symbolism will immediately associate it with the twelve stars which crown the BVM, although it can also be given a secular interpretation. Interestingly it was formally adopted on 8 December 1955, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

We Catholics would want to get our skates on. These powerful anti-Catholics are operating at a high level….but at a grassroots level we Catholics have not being doing our duty to Catholicise our society. Let the bigwigs do their damndest….but there will be plenty of support for the Church among ordinary secular people when they realise the dasterdly plans the Elites hold for them.

On all levels…let us pray fast and fight. And most importantly…Evangelise. May I suggest the Blessed Sacrament is brought into the public square more often so all can worship Christ (Catholic or not) etc. We need the Pope’s leadership now more than ever…even if it means he enters the political sphere too.

why don’t you read their website a bit more. If you are unable to reach the conclusion that they are right-wing extremists who are only nominally Christian then I dispare.

If seems that all a fascist organisation needs to do is adopt the “christain” label and you leap to their defence.

I had thought your orginal post to this story was a mistake born of ignorance over what the CDL are (although the similarity in name to the EDL and the “National-Christian Defense League” might have been a clue). But to leap to their defense when the truth is pointed out is beyond the pale.

OK….so they are a nominal Christian group…who basically are pro-Secularism, pro-Christian tradition and anti-Islam. Still don’t see how that is fascism! Be careful that you are not labelling as fascist that which you simply don’t agree with. Also I see that they have an Indonesian and Phillipines Christian defence league. Are they fascist too?!

But don’t worry….I don’t support ANY secular group at all. I support the return of Christendom. As the Pope says…we should have the courage to built at first oasis then islands then vast tracts of land dedicated to Christian culture and Christ. (Sorry, can’t remember the exact quote)

Eric, stop using the term fascist (which has a distinct historical meaning) to describe right-wing views from a left-liberal standpoint. When I was an undergraduate forty years ago it was used by juvenile leftists against anyone who disagreed with their kindergarten version of Marxism-Leninism. Fascism was a revolutionary movement of the Left which owed a lot to Leninism; both were if you like Marxist heresies, which explains their mutual antagonism. Heretics are always falling out with each other.

You don’t support them because they are a “secular group” (they are not)! Now that takes the biscuit! I’d laught if it wasn’t so tragic.

Ioannes,

I think I originally used the term “neo-fascist” to make the distinction from the historical meaning clear.

But have you looked at their site? They are clearly authoritarian, racist nationalists with dark notions regarding ancestry and culture and horrible fantasies about driving out the “other”, in this case mainly Muslims and Arabs . I think that the hat fits rather well.

Why do you have have such difficulty in condeming them? Is it because they (mis)use the word Christian in the title of their evil little group and that blinds you to their evil?

Eric….I think you may be mixing up the views of some of their members with the views of the organisation. Daily you can find the most horrible attitudes on the internet….so why pick on these people alone. They are no worse than Islamic extremists. I have copied some statements from them that would make your hair stand on end. So why not join in the discussion with these people and lead them from error offering them, Jesus Christ and Catholicism. I would but I am not on Facebook and have no intention of ever joining.

Also you haven’t answered my question….if they are so racist, then why an Indonesian and Phillipines Defense league. Be careful….before you condemn others, who are clearly in error, so harshly.

ms catholic state, if you read the whole article (generated as it is by Google translate) you will find that the manger WILL be in Brussels’ Grote Markt / Grand Place – as usual – and the issue is about the site of the tree.

It is also worth noting that the ‘Christian Defence League’ is not a religious organisation: it is a political organisation (with links to the English Defence League and the like), which seeks to exploit Christianity for its political agenda – rather as Josef Stalin attempted to do with the Russian Orthodox Church during the Second World War. Take a look at the CDL Facebook page (beware strong language!): https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christian-Defence-League/129873903735716

I think you are right about the Manger….and that’s great if they have one. Deus Gratias.

But what is the political agenda of the CDF?! Do they want a return of Christendom?! If so then that is what I want….though like the Pope I want it peacefully through Evangelisation and conversion. I abhor the present situation where Christians (yes even nominal ones) must support one of 3 secular parties who are almost identical in their anti-family anti-Christian liberal consensus. This must change….and we need the Pope’s leadership now.

The CDL agenda is an entirely political ‘anti’ agenda with no positive proposals to promote Christianity let alone evangelise. Do please take a look at its Facebook page: it is awash with hate messages revealing a total lack of Christian values.

I agree. Secularists don’t realise that only a return to the true Faith will halt Islamisation. Therefore it is up to us to the show them the way. And at the same time to pray for and help with the conversion of all including Muslims. Let’s not dismiss a whole bunch of scared people just because they are terribly politically incorrect. God calls all remember.

Please read my post carefully. I called them Secularists not Christians (except nominally). They appear to believe in the equality of all religions which clearly makes them secularist. Yes there is a lot of hate for Muslims whom they regard as their enemy. And many Muslims see Christians/Jews/Hindus as the enemy too. But that is no reason to completely dismiss them without showing them true Christianity.

Isn’t that just displaying the same type of hatred for them that you accuse them of.

They seem to believe in the equal status of all religions therefore they don’t really believe in the Truth of any religion. And they hate Islam….nobody is saying they don’t. And yes…believing that all religions are equally true/equally false is a tenet of secularism. That’s why secularists reject any state religion….as they claim they are all equally true/false.

The irony is that many of the Eriteans who were deported by Borg, were subsequently tortured and killed because of their membership of minority Christian communities. It seems to me that it might be wise to put the “gay issue” aside just this once and conclude that Dr Borg’s candidacy cannot be supported by anyone who is in favour of human rights for migrants, rights for religious minorities and respect for human life and dignity.

Dear Catholics, could you please using correct terms when describing disordered behaviour? Instead of “gay” please use “homosexual” or better biblical “sodomy”. We will never reclaim the public discourse unless we first start using the appropriate terminology. God bless!!

You can use whatever term you wish (free will, remember?), but I personally don’t see any reason why some would use the word “sodomites” when speaking about the homosexual lobby. After all, the word itself is not insulting. If anything, it is rooted in the Bible and Tradition. I know some offensive words, but out of respect for human dignity I wouldn’t use them. However, if you are really Catholic, then I would advise you to use the term “homosexual”. English is not my first language, but as far as I know, the word itself (gay) originally meant something rather nice -happy, bright. As we all know, sin and particularly the sin crying for vengeance to heaven is not nice….Furthermore, by using word “gay” you are allowing them to control and pervert the language and subsequently the entire society.

This seems to be the usual PTP story, find a story, look for a conspiricy and watch the usual suspects get all het up about nothing. God must be shaking his head. Does the Pope visit this site – I hope not, he’ll be in dispair.

On the other hand Christopher Caldwell’s ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’ (2009) delivers what David Goodhart, who reviewed the book for the Observer 0n 17 May 2009, described as “a bracing counter-argument to the prevailing liberal orthodoxy” on immigration. Words like fascist (or neo-fascist), racist, sexist, homophobic, and in the US, neocon, are really only terms of abuse which reflect the prejudices of those who bandy them about. Worse still, they are used to suppress discussion.

JD, you said earlier that “most people in the UK accept fascist as a term for right-wing”. This is why it is best not to use it. Half the population probably have right-of-centre opinions on many issues. The problem with epithets which have no precise meaning is that they mean whatever people want them to mean, which is all right if you are of the Humpty Dumpty school of semantics. Since McPherson a ‘racist’ comment is any comment which the recipient, or anyone else, deems to be racist; thus you get the reductio ad absurdum that it is quite possible to be offensively racist about your own race, or when a footballer who calls another player a “f****** black c***” is prosecuted not for the outer words, which are offensive, but for the middle one, which is merely (and accurately) descriptive.

You also have expressions which have a vague feel-good sound but which are politically loaded. For instance, public employees are expected to sign up to a policy of “equality and diversity”. There are even well-paid apparatchiks whose sole function is to enforce this policy. Yet the two terms are mutually contradictory, egalitarianism is specifically condemned by the Catholic Church, and diversity is a fact of nature which no individual can do anything about.

I’m unhappy about reading the blanked out racist swear words because when reading the post the mind fills in the blanks and I hear these appalling words. My initial reaction was to moderate the comment but it would have undermined the point being made. Please avoid using swearing on Protect the Pope even if it is blanked out. Deacon Nick

In 1969 David Frost asked Enoch Powell if he was a racialist. Powell’s response was: “It depends on how you define the word ‘racialism’. If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically ‘No’.”

Powell had a considerable knowledge of, and respect for, the culture of the Indian subcontinent. He was also too intelligent, and too honest, to be a successful politician.

Yes, JD, the sight of a docker carrying a placard reading “Enoch calls a spade a spade” was scarcely edifying, and since the Birmingham speech politicians have dodged the issue and hidden behind weasel words like ‘multiculturalism’ (a concept criticized by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI).